Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-1975 City Council Minutes MINU~ES SARATOGA C~TY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, August 20, 1975 - 7:30 P.M. " ' PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California T~PE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brigham, Corr, Kraus, Matteoni, Bridges Absent: None B. MINUTES It was moved b~ Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the minutes of July 29, 1975 be approved, and the reading be waived. The motion was carried. · II. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF STATE~HIGHWAYS IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA (Cont'd. 7/2/75) It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by CouncilWoman Corr the Agreement for Maintenance oftState Highways be approved, subject to the modification on Page 16, indicating $6,000.00 maximum expenditure per route for State Route 9. The motion was carried unanimously. B. AGREEMENT BET~IEEN THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND COMMUNITY GARDEN BOARD OF DIRECTORS, INC. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr this agreement be approved, and become' effective when the agreement between the Community Garden Committee and the I.O.O.F. becomes ratified. The motion ' was carried unanimously. C. ANNUAL STREET SEALING PROGRAM - SEAL COATING AND OVERLAYING CERTAIN CITY STREETS, 1975 The City Manager explained that three bids had been received and doened at the specified time (August 18, 1975 at 2:00P.M.),.~i~16~.!b~d 6f $93,329.80 from McCarthy and Spiesman. He further explained t~'~t'~b~'~the~m(rning Of the 18th, the P~blic Works Office became aware of an error in the quantity on one of the items on ~he bid specifications, and notified those el.igible bidders advising them of this error. At 2:07 P.M., a representative from Piazza Paving Co. submitted a bid, which was not opened. .Piazza Co. indicated they were going to protest this procedure, which they did in a letter, dated August 19, 1975. The City Manager indicated it is the recommendation of the Director of Public Works that the Council accept th~ low bid and award the contract to McCarthy and Spiesman. Following some discuSsionlby theCouncil~ however, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Council reject all bids on this project and instruct the staff to re-advertise, for a bid opening d~te of September 8, 1975 and award of contract on September 9, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. D. GLEN BRAE DRIVE WALKWAY It was indicated that four bids had been received for the installation of this walkway, the low bid from M;C~ Slack Paving Co. in the amount of $3,344.00, and the Director of Public Works has recommended this bid be accepted. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brieham~h_e'~con- tract be awarded to M.C. Slack Pav!ng Co. for this project. Th~ motion was carried unanimously. III. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND FORMAL RESOLUTIONS A. .RESOLUTION NO. MV-98 Resolution Establishing Right Turn. Lane on Al'lendale Ave. andDesfgnating the Intersection of Glenbrae Drive and V4a Real Dr.ive as a Stop'Intersection ~~oo~ur'red ~ith the~_p_iAio~ of'the D'~r(~oor of Rjbl'i~thatT~ere Councilman Matteoni felt the-'staf~ishOuld take a furthe~ look at~~ ~of the cross~alk with this intersection. It was moved b~Councilman Brigham'.and seconded by Councilman Kraus that Resolution MV-98 be adopted, excluding the Glenbrae-Via Real stop signs, and the staff be~instructed tO report~E~h~~d~t'i~fd'i:ng a more appropriate crossing, giving COnsi~~'~F~ railroad tracks. The motion was canried. B. RESOLUTION 743 Resolution Authorizing. Closure of Street for Fall Festival Parade It was moved by CoUncilman Kraus agd second~ by'Councilman 8~igham Resolution 743 be adopted. The motion was carried. C. RESOLUTION 744 Resolution Authorizing Departmentai Expe ~itures and Transfer of Funds 'Between and/or ~ong Funds It was moved by Councilman Brigham and second~by CouncilwOman Corr Resolution 744 be adopted. The motion was carried. D. RESOLUTION 745 Resolution Fixing the Amount of Revenue from Property Taxes Necessar~ for the Support of the Departments of the'City of Saratoga for Fiscal'Year 1975-76 and-to, Pay Any Bonded or Other Indebtedness of the Ci'ty,~and Fixi=ng the Amount of Revenue Sufficient to Pay the Estimated Cost for Said Fisca~ Year for SCL District No. 1, Azule Lighting District, Qu~to Lightinn District, Fredericksburg Drive Park Maintenance District, Manor Drive Park.Maintenance District, Greenbrier Park Maintenance Distriat., and Village Parking Maintenance District No. 1 ~he_City Manager explained that this resolution works out~i~he"'r~ ~6nt~i~es of the various homeowners groups the level ofm~c'e~h~'' ~' and sets the amount of revenue for improvement and maintenance of the street lighting system for the individual districts. The resolution also provides that $400,000.00 would befixed as the amount of revenue from propertg. taxes. - 2- RESOLUTION 745 (Cont'd. He further explained that this resolution is directly related to Item E on the agenda, fixing the tax rate for Fiscal Year 1975-76. He indicated if the total amount of revenue from property taxes is rai'sed~t~$~O'O,~.O~,,'~'i~'~ ~ necessitate an 8¢ increase i n the property tax rate~T~Th~C~n~i'l'f~'t'y ~Re'~6i~i6(745 should be considered in conjunction with Resolution 32-R. E. RESOLUTION 32-R Resolution Fixing Tax Rates for Fiscal Year 1975-76 Mr. Paul McCarty, 20055 Wi.nter Ave., addressed the Council~ protesting the proposed 8~ increase in the property tax rate. Mr. McCarty commented that this rate would representa 40% increase in'the tax rate, which is piled on top of a sizable increase in assessed valuation'of approximately 30%. He further commented that he feels the City has set its sites too high in pro- posing this increased tax rate. Mr. Winters, a resident of Wardell Court, commented that he is in a~reement with the previous speaker,.and that the City is not asking that muc~ as far as dollars, but as far as percentages go, this is a terrible amount. The City Manager explained that by diverting $31,000.00 in Motor Vehicle-in- Lieu money to the Operating Budget, this would reduce the tax rate to increase. Councilman Matteoni referred to Alternative No. 4 in Jim Hendrickso~'s memorandum~City Council, dated August 5, 1975, whereby ~15,000 could be elimin~d~6m the unallocated 'reserVe, thds-allowing for ~nother decrease, for a total of 25~. Councilman Kraus voiced his opposition to funds'being taken out of iM~.V~L_.~~ funds. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Matteoni .Resolution 745 be ad~pted, subject to modificationo~the fi.xed amoun~ of revenue fromp~operty tax~s from $400~000~00 to $3~6,250.~00.. ,The'motion was carried, 4 to 1.. Councilman K~abs voted ~n o~position. Itwas then moved by ~ounci!man B~i'gham and ~seconded by Councilman Matteoni that Resolution 32~R.be-~dopted,.=subj!ec~ to modif~cati~on of the tax r~te to per.each $100.00 of assessed valuation. 'The motion.was carried, 4 to 1. Councilman K~aus voted~in opposition. IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. SDR~l132 ROGER CHRISTENSEN, ~ANYO N VIEW DRIVE 1 LOT It was moved by (ouncilman Kr~us and seconded by Councilman Matteoni SDR-1132-1, granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. B. SDR-l.133 BARRETT ANDERSON, JACKS ROAD 1 LOT It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni Resolution SDR-1133-1, granting Final Building Site ~pproval, be adopted. The motion was carried. C. SDR-1197 DAVID AND STEVEN BROWN, SARATOGA HILLS ROAD 1 L"OT It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni Resolution SDR-1197-1, granting Final Building Site ADproval, be adopted. The motion was carried. D. SDR-1179 JOHN COLISTRA, CANYON VIEW DRIVE 1 LOT It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni Resolution SDR-11.79 Resolution SDR-1179-1, granting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. E. TRACT 5409 OSTERLUND ENTERPRISES, WOOD DELL COURT It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni Resolution 36-B-149, Authorizing Acceptance of Streets~.~'~e~'~d Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials bonds be rele~se~'~he'motion was carried. F. TRACT 5243 OSTERLUND ENTERPRISES,.WOOD DELL COURT It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by,Councilman Matteoni Resolution 36-B-151, Authorizing Acceptance of Streets, be adopted, and Faithful Performance and Labor and'Materials bonds be released. The motion was carried. G. TRACT 5244 OSTERLUNDENTERPRISES, WOOD DELL COURT It was moved by Councilman Kraus a~d seconded by Councilman Matteoni Resolution 36-B-150, Authorizing Acceptance of Streets, be adopted, and Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials bonds be released. The motion was carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-178, ZONE 2: Rezonin9 from "CV and/or CS (R~1-~2,500)" to "R-1-~2,500~'~ (Single-Family Residential) the 2.05 acre parcel bounded on' the north by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, on the east by Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, on the south by Manor Drive, and on the west by Tract #3822 Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, explained that this matter~c6mes-'abOut as a result of a request for rezoning for consistency with the General Plan. He then outlined the specific location of this site and the zoning of surrounding properties. He indicated this matter has been reviewed by the Planning Commission for possible rezoning in conformance with the General Plan, and it has been recommended this si~e be designated as "Residential",~'~t it isr recognized for residential purposes. Councilman Matteoni asked if the Planning Commission has indicated whether or not they are going to continue this as a possible amendment to the General Plan, and if so, when is the 1976 General Plan to be transmitted to the City Council. Mr. Van Duyn indicated that the Planning Commission met on May 19th to dis- cuss possible amendments to the General Plan; however, since it was felt designation to "PD Residential" wou~d be premature at this time, it was felt that the Council should proceed with rezoning of this site to ~'R-1-12,500". The Mayor then opened the public h~aring at 8:39 P.M. Richard E. Gardella, Attorney representing John and Mary Lyngso, who own a portion of the property proposed for rezoning, addressed the Council. Mr. Gardella indicated that he doesn't represent P.G.&E., who owns a portion of this property, and he doesn't represent the tenants on the P.G.&E. or Lynch property. Mr. Gardella commented that Mr. Lynch received a notice of this hearing; however, the notice indicates the present z~ning as "CV", and it was his understanding that the court had ruled "CV" zoning as invalid, keeping the "CS" designation as before. Mr. Gardella felt perhaps the hearing notice was somewhat misleading in this regard. He also commented that P.G.&EjYn~ ~nts on this property had not been furnished notice of these pro~e~d'ings. -4- C-178, ZONE 2 (Cont'd.) Mr. Gardella commented that it is his understanding the basic position of the City is that it is mandated to change the zoning of this property to comply with a General Plan which was put into effect in 1974, and for some reason, there has not been an E.I.R. prepared forthis proceedi.ng. He stated that perhaps the s~t_af_~f is s~y_i~g._t~e~r~ i§ nothing significant in this change of zoning, and ~comme~te~ t~~' if thiT]~h'e'~case, he wonders why' the Council is going throu~6'this'~6c~d~T' ~e"~bl'(the onl~ issue of significance is the intent to eliminate commercial use on this property. He commented that this property.is being used for the same ~urpose as before Saratoga was in- corporated -- as a nursery-and of the property, leased the P.G.&E. ri~h(~of-way, and' ~l'ti~t~l~ p~chased the property. He indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Lyngso and their~(" ~ have al~ been personally involved ~n the development and have worked'espT~ially hard. Mr. Gardella indicated that the Lyngso~dedicated.to the City part of the street which serves the adjoining subdivision parcel. He indicated Lyngso made numerous improvments to this property, which included installation of sprinklers, installation of trees which conceal the property from the adjoining property, street widening, reduced the numberof beds and stock piles from the time this property went in in 1968. He ~ndicated that over the years, they have had complaints about del'iveries at night, andC~'t(~' . , problem does not exist and that they have even put,up a fence ~n~ l~cked the place up at nights. He further co~ented they have heard stat~ents made that the assessed valuation was virtually fiil, and he indicated this is incorrect -- that the assessedvaluation is a matter of public record. Mr. Gardella indicated that there has been a ruling that this business is not a nuisance, and that these complaints have been exaggerated. He stated that all this has. le~to a situation.whereby, according to the Planning Co~ission minutes, one r~sidenthad indicated he had participated in the General Plan proceedings and that originally thi's site was shown as "Co~ercial" on ~he General Plan draft version, and' it. was changed because of the neighbors. Mr. Gardella indicated that he would'suggest the General Plan be changed .back, and that this is a good business-and an active busin~s~that provides a real benefit to the community,~d~'~&s~ ~and- scaping and beautification materials for serving the community." He in~i'cated the nature of the co~erc~a]. area as it extends u~r~TS~ai~R~a~'i~ such c'~t~T~r~'~o'~ a~S~"l]~e' ~c~S~th'~i~t anal e of that"ro~d~ you C&T ~' '~h[C6mmer~la]~ a~'8~ ~TSou~er6 '~cif~afi ro~ 'i s eXa'c~i~ ~ opposite the parcel proposed to be changed to R-1. He indicated if there is an odd-shaped piece located near the railroad tracks and it is industrial use, with commercial and industrial uses nearby, then this piece is logically in a commercial zone. Mr. Gardella indicated they have bffered to sit down with various groups to work out any alternatives; however,' there doesn't seem to be a receptiveness in doing this -~ it seems to be~l~l:=.6~6~6i~"~ He stated he is looking at a family which has worked v~'~'~d~t~' proposal here is to eliminate ~his business, and he feels this is wrong. The City Attorney asked Mr. Gardella if he understands it correctly that Mr. Gardella-is not representing the tenants; therefore, he is not repre- senting Lyngso Garden Materials. Mr. Gardella replied that he doesn't believe they have receiv~ any notice of this meeting. Mr. Johnston indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Lyngso are present this evening, howeve[, and Mr. Gardella veri~fied this. Mr. Johnston pointed out the Lyngsm.~ are also the officers, directors and shareholders of Lyngso Garden Materials. The City Attorney then asked ~r. Van Duyn i~ he was correct"in the fact that there was a Negative Declaration on this. Mr. Duyn.confi~ed the fact that there was a Negative Declaration filed on Januar~ 3, 1975. Mr. Gardella request~ a copy of this report, and it was indicated this would be made available. - 5- C-178, ZONE 2 (Cont'd.) With regard to Mr. Gardella's statement that no notice was sent P.G.&E., the City Attorney indicated it was his understanding that P.G.&E. has already been zoned "R-1-12,500". Mr. Van Duyn verified this, indicating that the legal description refers only to the'Lyngso parcel. and apparently, the description Mr. Gardella refers to includes more area than that represented. Councilman Matteoni indicated that in readi.ng over the report from the Planning Director and also, the minutes of'the Planning Commission, there seems to be some indication from Mr. Heid, who is representing the~Lyngso's 'interest,¢f~6~ acceptance of this longer-range tentative recommended action by the Planning Commission -- that "is,'to look at the General Plan, and perhaps put 'this into planned development. He asked Mr. Gardella if'this was a reasonable alter- native. Mr. Gardella stated that they are receptive to dealing with'Whoever the powers might be to work out an acceptable solution. Mr. Van Duyn commented that.the!Planning Commission has met several times with Mr. Heid, and they did get to 'thepoint of making ~a recommendation that they consider~'~l~'{~_6 ~'~'G~ne~-l~l~;~n~'~-t~at alternative was for "PD". He ina~ated ~Mr~ ~H~i'd haa'e~pre~edi'~inion that there might be some agreement to this; therefore, these types of negotiations have been addressed-aNd this has been discussed several times before the Planning Commission, and there is a recommendation forthcoming to proceed at this point in time with the rezoning. Donald J. Sifferman, 12400 Green Meadow Lane, addressed the Council, indicating he is a resident of the City of Saratoga and President of Saratoga Manor Homeowners Association, comprised of homeowners to the west and south of this property. 'He indicated that the Homeowners Association has endorsed the position of the Planning Commission and recommends that the Council give favorable consideration to thisrezoning. Mr. Sifferman indicated that several residents of the city first appeared before the Council about two years ago ~o express their concern about the Lyngso operation, and two years since that time, they have worked closely with the staffand'Council, as well as representatives of. the Lyngso Corporati'on, in an attempt'to mitigate this situation. He indicated that'Lyngso has infact made several improve- ments to his property, as a result of recommendations of Bay Area Pollution Control District. He felt there were some changes wh4ch were positive, but he still feels there is a basic unresolved problem. He'indicated they have commented several times before the Planning Commission and City Council over the past two years about the concerns of the residents, which is the essential, residential ~atOne~of this community and the apparent incompatibility of the Lyngso operation. Mr. Sifferman commented that he feels the thing that stands the strongest is the' position of the unbiased eonsult~6T'~b~9~-t~e'tT~f. th~'~r~t Plan Review last year, recommended~t~{~6'~ropeFty~be ~o~e~ 'iResideG~ial", in compliance with previous General Plans of the City. He indicated there are a number of homeowners present this evening, who have expressed their con6ern over the years, and he feels the fact they are still .here indicates the problem in connection with the Lyngso property has not gone away. Councilman Matteoni asked Mr. Sifferman if,recognizing the fact that the Planning Commission has gone a second step 'in making this tentative recommen- dation, his homeowners group had any reaction to this. Mr. Sifferman replied that he would, have the concern that the consultant who worked on the General Plan last year publically.stated that Single-Family Residential was the favored development of this property. He felt the homeowners association might be receptive to entertaining some kind of Single-Family Planned Development on this property, but only 'in a way that it doesn't increase the density of "R-1-12,500" zoning., However, he indi- cated he is not sure he could state this as a position of the Homeowners Association, and he would have to say "R-1-12,500" is their first preference. L6- C-178, ZONE 2 (Cont'd.) It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the public hearing'be closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 9:05 P.M. Councilman Kraus asked Mr..Van Duyn what the Planning Commission was thinking of as "PlannedDevelopment"? Mr. Van Duyn replied that the Planning Commission= was leaving its options open. however, they had, indicated at their July meeting their primary concern was to keep the property residential. and as ~r'~as Planned. Development, they didn't know the specificsCof~e'~Ordinance at this point. I_.___ . Councilman Kraus indicated his concern was whether or not the Commission was considering tying in some kind of mixed use. Mr. Van Duyn commented that the Gen~eral PlanialloWs~fo~.t~e designation of Planned Development, "PD" Mixed Use', or "PD"'R~s~d~'~I'~ and the Planning Commission wanted to make sure the General Plan was amended from "PD" Residential. Counc~l__man Matteoni asked what~as th~'.~m~'~i on~ p~d~ co~par"~ ""R~'i~i 2~ 5~0" The City Attorney indicated he could answer this question in light of the present ordinance ,~reco~'~a~' b'9~ ~l~Tn'g'~Tmm~T6n', '~h~ '~ .<~a.~dT_~_~the No~onf6~i~'U~e ~Eti0nS. ~e C6~e~t~a' ~a'~-~f~ i~ zon~ "R-1-12,500", any use that is not completely.housed would-have one year, and any use that is completely hous~ wou3d have ten years. He indicated that the amito~i~n periodis geared to the use u~der the new ordinance, and under the old ordinance it was gear~ to the structure. Councilwoman Corr ask~ if in order to enclose this they would have to have a Use Permit. Mr. Johnston"repl'ied that they would have to have a Use Permit to continue at all as a non-confo~ing use. and after they-have the Use 'Petit, they would have one year in which to elimi'na~te outside activities and put them into a structure. It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus to introduce Ordinance C-178. providing for rezon~ng from ~']~ and/or CS (R-1-12,500)" to "R-1-12,500" (Single-Family Residential).the 2.05 acre parcel bounded on the north by Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, on the east by Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, on the south by Man6r Drive, and'on the west by Tract ~3822. The motion was carried. B. C-178, ZONE 1: Rezonin~ from "R-3-12,500" and ."R-l-15,000" (Single-Family Residential.) to "R-I-20,000 PC" (Single-Family Residential, Planned~Community) the 47.39 acres belongin~ to the Fr~ont Union School District, bounded on the north by Southern Pacific.Railroad Tracks and. Prospect Road, on the east by Tracts ~4508 and ~4536 (kn6wn'-as-~'Pb~asant Rid~"~, on the west b~ the propert~ co~onl~ known as the ~'Parker Ranch, site, and on the south by Tract ~4886 (known as "Arroyo de Ar~uello"). Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, outl-ined the specific location of this site. He indicated this is a matter which was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission as a consistency matter under ~he General Plan ReView. Prior to the consistenc~ issue,'~the~propert~ had a Resi'dential zoning'classification~ ~ ~n~C'6~~ ~6~hT~g w~ ~aes ~ ~ T0~d~FT~i~"~ ~t 6i ~rope~t~i~t6~ ~o~ i~dv-'Wit~ ~the~"G~ n~r~=~r'P i'~n ~ ~ 6d' '~ ~ '~s ~'~co~e~d ' /'{h~f~'t~~ be~f~d'~o~'' R: 1~'6~000'~'." He'~ i~i ~d'~Hat th¥ ~h661~i~ ~oC on slapes in excess of 10%, and it is not within a slope conservation zone. He further indicated this matter was revi~ed in light of the 1975 amendment to the General Plan, and it was done so with the inclusion of a petition to the City~Council, requesting the site be rezoned "R-1-40,O00". He commented -7- C-178, ZONE 1 (Cont'd.) May, 1975. He stated that the present zoning of'the property-cart'be con- sidered consistent with the General Plan. The Planning C,oninission ag~i.n_ reviewed this matter, and it was indicated even th~is~n'~nT~g is~On- sistent with the General Plan, they'~i'i~' ~'~ "R-~S-2~T~PC~ a~te] land classification for this site, an~ 'iT~ai' therefore recommended~!'~'~be transmitted to the City Council for approval. Mr. Van Duyn indicated that the General Plan states on page 23: "Although there are no schools currently located in-~t.~,, the ~T~ High School District owns a 50-acre si~{h~(t of th~intersection of Prospect'and the Southern Pacific tracks. If not needed for a school., this site becomes one of the most i~ediately developable sites Outside the Slope Conservation Zone. ., Continuation of the existingsingle-family residential zoning in this area appears to be-the most reasonable wayto maintain the homogeneous, low-density residential character of the area." that i. lati.o that to cit co.. il" pol'i [ jtj bt o. sistency, low density is designated~for this type of development, and PC is also reco~ended, in that it does not in any way increase density. Mr. Van Duyn further indicated there is correspopdence from the School District, requesting this.entire site be rezonedto "R-l-15,000". The Mayor opened the public hearing:at 9:16 P.M. John Weir, 12343 Arroyo de Arguello, President of Arguello Homeowners- Association, addressed ~he Council, indicating that he would like to re- emphasize the position of the 250 residents who signed the petition asking for one-acre zoning. He pointed out the fact that the petition was signed by 91.6% of the people within voting age in this area. Mr. Weir indicated that the school property is bounded on the west side by an area thatlooks like it woul'd be;zoned 2~acres per home, according to the current ~ergency ordinance for hillside development, which sets a 2~- acre minimum. It is bounded on the bast by property with R-1-12,500 zoning. On. the south~jt is~bounded by a 17=acre parcel, which is zoned for half~'acre. ,~Mn. '~iF'f~l~]T']~ rea~o~6~e-~]'~'e~a~'~ s~h6~l~ty to a transition '~i *'~t~i~7~h]~Tw6~l a ~i i 1' ~b~'i ~tent width the con- sistency guidelines. He stated they are looking at the size of the lots, and not the use; Also, he indicated that the residents do not wish PC zoning prematurely an the pKoperty, and it their feeling PC zoning provides the City a "blank check" for PC development, with no r~uirement onthe City to gO'through formal hearings on the PC zoning changes~prior to develop- ing'the property. : In addition, Mr. Wei~ inBi'cated it is felt PC zoning at this time circumvents the provision within the PC Ordinance, which requires a Specific development · plan associated wi.th the PC zoning, and there is no plan presented at all,for this. He commented that~h~T~E6t~ there are good features of PC zoning under certain conditions,?~>~6se'should be presented at the time someone has specific plans for development. Mr. Weir co~en~ed that as far as he is concerned, he hasn't seen it an~her~ in the General Plan that would require PC zoning on this property. He further indicated there are areas in the sout~estern,s~6~d~Y~ zone which are in excess of 10% slope. He felt the PC zoning f6F'~his-'plan would allow and encourage a developer to build more dwellings. Thereforte, he indicated ~e felt it would be proper that tl~is area be zoned 3~j_~nezacre area, at "R-l-40,000", rather than "R-1-20,000PC", ~S~9~!~_u/ge to reject the Planning Co~issions reco~endation. Councilman Matteoni commented he would like Mp. 'Weir to 'indicate the number of acres in which the slope is greater than 10%, and the number which is less than 10%. Also, he would li'ke to know if there was relatively safe topographv -8- : C-178, ZONE 1 (Cont'd.) the lands to the west distinguished, in terms of looking at this. as a tran- sition area. Mr. Weir commented they have prepared a viewgraph which<~_o_~o_'~ggh~v~ ines 1 outl the areas of more than 10% and less. than 10%, and a rough estimate indicates approximately one-third~is in excess of .10% slope. Councilman Matteoni asked Mr. Weir if it was his understanding proposal for PC zoning would not allow for a public hearing on a precise plan to be~(6~i'd~r~d_~by the Planning Con~ission and the neighbors. Mr. Weir co~ented 'that the Planning Co~ission has indicated they felt the public should be involved in this process; however, his concern is that time passes and Planning Co~issi'ons change, and there are no mandated requirements~ within the ordinance which say this must be done. Mr. Van Duyn commented that essentially, th~lT~'~ri~'{G]~.~evening would fulfill the requir~ent for public input. Mayor Bridges asked the City Attorney if there was some way to impose this kind of restriction on the property. Mr. Johnston, City Attorney, indicated that under the proposed PC Ordinance, there will be mandatory public hearings; however,. under the present ordinance, before development, there must.be a site development plan. There is no specific requirement that if you would rezone it 20,000 PC today, then on a subsequent date you would have to have a publ'ic hea~ing for the site develop- ment plan, any more than you would have to have a public hearing on a sub- division map. The fact of the matter is that up until now, there has been one on each case, as a matter of policy, but not as a matter of ordinance. Mr. Van Duyn pointed out on the vieWgraph the area which has been designated as a propos~ park site development, which is the bottom 5 acres of the school site. He indicated if this area should go for private subdivision, it would be r~uired this use be part of the. subdivision approval. Councilwoman Corr inquired if this is the area which Mr. Weir had indicated had the greatest amount.of slope. Mr. Van Duyn replied that part of it would ~e in this area. Councilman Matteoni inquired if this property ~ere to develop and the park dedication was a requir~ent, som~here between 5 to 10 acres, would those acres come out of the density if you were to divide the '~O'tal acreage into b whatever des i gnation i s determi ned, and' ~6~l'd~T~r~ ~6T~6~.E -~ge'?~. ~.~T~]~nsi ty o~ the park land to be lost? Mr~~ Van Duyn replied that we wouldn't have the ability to expand the density, and if this were designated PC, 'the park useage would have to be eliminated to al 1 ow this devel opment~ ~" ~ ' '~T~ ~ ~' "~' ~ Mr. Weir stated at 'the Planning Co~ission Meeting, it was indicated that it was not at all certain this park would be there. Mr. Van Duyn stated that there are no funds to purchase the property at the present time, and the School District has not yet put the property UP for sale for private d~l~t~herefore, ~h~ ~S no wa~?or t~Co~'l~i~llz~ _P_n the. Pr~sPect~Ve"d~Xejjep~nt ~th_i~ t~e._.?' ~ Russell Crowther,20788 Norada Court, addressed the Council, co~enting that he has been involved with this development for 1~ years, and it first came up during the General Plan hearings in January, 1974. He stated that the General Plan references a map, dated June 30, 1974, ~nd the map before the Council this evening is dated August 7, 1974. He stated there was a change som~here along the way i~ ~oundaries of. slope conservation zone, which was moved out of the boundary of the school site, however, it appears there is about -9- C-178, ZONE 1Cont'd.) one-third of the site with slopes ih excess of 10%, and they have estimated some slopes in this area at 25 to 30%. Mr. Crowther indicated he would like to correct Mr. Van Duyn's comment that the P.G.&E. right-of-way was 175 fe~t, stating that there are two towers on the site which are side-by-sidezin.the center'of the property, and it is 150 feet from the edge of one tower~J~he outside edge of the other tower, and with the setback of another 15 feet, ~ ZWould be close to 180 feet. He then presented slides relating to flooding on this property, indicating that this has been one of the concerns with thi's development He also pointed out the area of'the "Shannon Fault", which is shown crossing the site; however, he i.ndicated it is still uncertain as to the actual location of this fault. He referenced a letter transmitted by Robert McLaughlin, indicating he felt the position of the fault should~be resolved, particularly if this were to be used as a school site. He indicated that the County "hazard map" also shows part of the site in'the area called "DS", indicated as an area df~' high potential for landslides. Mr. Crowther commented they have noted there are many other areas within the City of Saratoga zoned to one acre that have much more stable designations than this, and compared to these areas, i't seems reasonable this property be~ zoned one acre. He mentioned other concerns ofthe residents, such as flooding along Prospec~ Creek, which they feel might increase City costs; 'impact of existing low areas where there is a 'lake which forms on the property.. He indicated that the major concern 'is that development density be kept at a minimum. He mentioned a concern of a potenti~]~ problem related to water drainage and diversion of water. He commented that the people who signed the above-referred-to petition had different'concerns; however, he.felt'the key ones were streets, flooding and the present open sp.ace use of the property. Mr. Crowther indicated he felt the petition is a compromise, in that there were some people.o~'this neighborhood who did not sign the petition because they felt the area should be left in open space, and they did not want to sign a petition which asked for a residential zone, and he felt~it was a compromise for those who did sign the petition in asking for oneSacre zoning. Mr. Crowther indicated that if you go to the south along the slope conser- vation zone, all~th.~p~perty to the south is either "Agricultural" or one- acre zoning. (A'lso,'he c6mmented this area is referenced in the General Plan as being in t~s~a~gory as the Wildwood H~i~ts area, which is now in one-acre zoning. In an analysis of PC zoning, Mr. CrOwthere.indicated the'Planning Commission has recommended PC zoning to keep the development at a minimum. He commented that from their point of view, they feel the 2½ acre minimum which would be required on this one-third of~the site would~t~d'~) to this, independent of PC. They also feel that if this is zoned "n6n~PC,~, there wi.ll have to be exclusion areas,.whe~e the power lines for the_creek and possibly for the fault Mr. Crowther indicated they have worked up an estimate of what the density would be if the home sites on the property were kept away from the power lines, the creek and the slopes~i~GS"R-1-20,O00", and have concluded that the lot size would be about "R-l-13,000". At "R-1-40,O00", they have con- cluded this would be about "R-1-26~O00", and this is because it looks like about 35% of the site falls into the category of'land where you would not put houses upon. He indicated that because of these necessary exclusions,' they feel that "R-1-40,O00" is a better transition, relative to the 2½ or greater density to the west. Also, he commented that the Planning Commission has indicated if we don't zone PC now, it would be very difficult to get'~'~ developer to do this later. Therefore, they feel there is an apparent natural incentive for Planned Community, and it would be to the developer's advantage to go that route. 10- C=178, ZONE 1 (Cont'd.) Mr. Crowther mentioned another concern is that they have heard the Planned Community Ordinance has been revised, and they are very concerned about re~ zoning to an unknown at this point;. therefore, they would be opposed to re-zoning to Planned Community on this basis. In summary, Mr. Crofther stated the~homeowners feel this is a reasonable transition, relative to the densities on each side, and it is a compromise of the homeowners"views; they feel this request is consistent. wi'.th~o~able ~F~'of Saratoga; they feel their request is consistent with' the_U~e~ ~61'ems o n this site and the surrounding communi.ty;~d~t~y~e~ ~th~Tde~op- ing it at a high density will~not be in £he'city's be~'l~r~t,~bG~i~'~He best interest of the'citizens outside our area. He indicated he was hopeful the City Council would honor this request for rezoning to "R-1-40,O00" zoning. Mr. Crowther indicated he would lik~ to mention the Open Space Element of the General Plan, and in this part of the General'Plan, this property is .inven- toried as an open space area; therefore,. he'felt consistency with this part of the General Plan should also be considered. Councilman Kraus asked Mr. Crowther if the area which he referred to of his <~i bit~'was~i~r~d't~be~'a~l~pe'lO%'6r~P~ater. Mr. Crowther replie~ that it is 10% or greater, and it goes upin some areas in range. He understood this to have been designate~ in an early General Plan map as a slope conservation zone. Mr. Kraus then asked that if this is 10% or greater, who determined this~.~ Mr. Crowther replied that this was the designationS?in the 1974 General Plan map. The City Manager p6inted out the fact that this map was not approved. It was unde~ the General Plan discussion~ initially, and it does reflect where. the slope is vis-a~vis no slope on the property. Councilman Matteoni asked Mr. Crowther what the term "high density" means, in terms of zoning. Mr. Crowther replied they would be opposed to half-acre zoning, on the basis that it is higher density, and he feels i~t would not be consistent with other parts of the city which are in a slope conservation a~ea. Councilman Matteoni then asked if, excluding that area which Mr. Crowther ~TGS~d in his sketch as having 10% or greater slope, and taking the l~n~s'~6'the east as they go toward the various courts, does .the property remain generally flat property on the school site, and if the problems with landsl.ides and liquifaction applied to flat lands also, or only to the slope area mentioned. Mr. Crowther replied that he believes this enti're area extends out, and he feels the problem is that the underground water table is quite high in this area (10 to 20 feet below ground level), and on the recent County maps, there is an area which is indicated as one for high potential tiquifaction, lurching, etc., and what theyl are saying is this is newinformation which was not available at'the time the other homes were built~in the area, and if you look at other areas in Saratoga which are zoned one-acre, these areas are qdite stable and not in the same category at all. Councilman Matteoni C~men~ed it seems that ~rr."~6~h~.SS~a~..~i ndi'~e~ ~pr~bl ems go beyond the propertg'iines"6~'t~fi66~'~t~i~:~6~<, '~d'~"~R~d~if there have been problems with landslides and liquifaction in this area. .~rz Crowther c'orrected thi s, i ndi cati ng the~f~: ar~'~'de~L~aa~'~n'~'~e~"£ounty faction, etc~ He is s~yi~f~it is not as~stable as areas further to the south. He further indicated that there is a fault line which crosses the site, and it is indicated as a potentially active fault by both the State and the Federal -11- C-178, ZONE 1 (Cont'd.) Government, and they feel this should also bear some consideration. Robert Martin, Deputy Superintendent, Fremont Union High School DistriCt, addressed the Council, indicating his purpose is to represent the School District Board of Directors in urging disapproval of the proposed rezoning of the property located at Prospect and Stelling from "R~l-15,0OO"'-and "R-1-12,500" to-"'R-1-20,O00 PC". He comnented that this<~'~res of land belongs to all the taxpayers of the Fremont Union High School District, representing apopulation of approximately 235,000 people, who live in Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, San Jose, and unincorporated area. He'further stated that these owners purchased the property in 1960 for the specific purpose of buying and constructing schools. They bought four other parcels in addition to the Prospect parcel, and preliminary plans were pre- pared for the school on Prospect. He stated that planning for the develop- ment and non-development of the adjacent area has not been finalized, and it is possible!the plans for the nearby area may change, and it is for this reason the School. District has no intention of selling this property at this time. They expect to use it according to the original intent 15 years ago,= that being development for educational purposes. Mr. Martin stated that several months ago, representatives of the School District appeared before the State Obligation Board and appealed for an exemption on the unused property assessment; and convinced thi's Board they d~d not intend to build on this site. He stated the reason they.~'i'~ "~ ~ ~bj~i~"~'~h~"p~o~p~e~o~i~"i'~ t~at~h~i r'Board-o~"Di~ctd'~'~l~ i{ '~s .their o6Tiga"~{ion not tQ d~rease'the va~fS{~is preperty., and {hi~ == zoning change.wou.ld lessen the value of the property. He i.ndicated that most of the surrounding homes are on lots zoned "'R-1-1~2,500" and "R-l=lS,000", and increasing the lo~ size will prebably resul~ .in a value increase for surrounding properties, aQd he pointed out that when the value of property goes up, so do the taxes, andShen the taxes go up, the schools are held responsible. construction of a school at Prospect and Stelling, losing ~aCh time by a very narrow margin. It is their feeling that if the need is there, it will be supported by the'taxpayers;.in the meantime, they must make every effort to protect the value of the taxation line~ Mr. Martin stated they would urge that this re-zoning proposal be rejected. Tom Sawyer, 20790 Norada Court, addressed the CounCil, stating that the interesting situation which occurs here is if the property is developed at "R-1-12,500", the number of students co~ing into this district from these homes actually represents a drain on the budget, and the reason it is drained is that the assessed valuation is limited by Senate Bill 90 to about $1,200.00 per student, and the expenditure per student is about $1,400.00. The $200.00 difference is made up in school taxes. He stated that the addition of sites would bring additional students into the District, but not'increase the present taxes, and the net affect is that there is ~ $200.00 loss to the District to educate those students, ~8"tH~Fe"~6~t~&'~e to reduce the average expenditure per student. It was then moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by'Councilwoman Corr the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 10:05 P.M. ~'Cou~ciJman. Matt~oni.--fhdi'C~ted~.he~fe~t~the P)anning Commission~desi.gpation ~ /_~ should be deleted, indicating that h~s concern is that presentIv ~' t~e: ~h ne~n'T~'~6~ool ~6r a pu bl i c hea~i hg FHFf~i~i~t~ ~ it is his u~der~t~n~' tha~ ~e'~iS'~i:~g~t~mr~s~,'~-affeCt' -'3 )'those l~nds which have s:lope greater th'an 10%; therefore, the s~ope is distinguished, regardless of the zoning on that site. He commented that Iwhen that interim.resolution is replaced by a permanent slope conservation '.ordinance, there would be two choices: t) draw the slope conservation boundaries _ .) - 12 - C-178, ZONE 1 (Cont'd.) to fit the lO%'line; or 2) take the slope formula out of the Subdivision Ordinance, and make that'a Zoning. Ordinance "catch-all". He ~'hdicated he could accept the transitionl~one recommended by the Planning Commission, with the PC aspect. The Council further discussed their concerns relative to the PC aspect, and it was felt the Ordinance for this rezoning should be introduced _this evening and referredback to the Planning staff for a report'back,~.~iffg a_"S)more definitive slope description of this property. It was moved' by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham this matter be continued to a Committee of the Whole Meeting'on September 23rd.~ for further'di'scussion of those expressed concerns, and the public hearing be re-opened and continued to the regular meeting of October 1. The motion was carried. · C. Appeal by Robert C. Truax, 12401 Green Meadow Lane,,of P~lanning Commission's Denial on Requested Variance to Allow Construction of an Addition to an AccessO.ry Structure Lo. Cat~d Partial.ly Within a Req. uir. ed RearWard and Necessi- tatinq a Reduction .of ~.he ~.equir.e~i...RearVard'Setback from 25 Feet to 10 Eee't as .RegUlated by Ordinance NS-3.,.Section 3.7 Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, located this property on the viewgraph. He explained that the applicant has requested a variance to allow construction of an addition to an existing cabana located wi.thin 25-feet of the rear property line. He stated that the existing'cabanameasures 480 square feet and the proposed addition would extend an additional. 28 feet to the north, representing an additional 560 square feet in floor area. He indicated that the application involved is a matter of extending the ,___.,----- cabana into the reoui.~>~e~..~.rearvard setback areai~ This addition would come yT .... : '~i~fi~O fb~tT=6~ ~~h~ ~':~r'O~{~"'l~'~(p'~S~h'~i~="i'! He indicated it is the staff's findings that there are extenuating circum- stances, in that there is a large area of open space represented by P.G.&E, Southern Pacific Railroad and Santa Clara Val'ley Water District properties, and the fac~ ~h~t_'t_~he__app]~9~nt do~s~a~an_!'~eg~l~l~C§haped site. He indicated~.is"the:staff-"s'~]~f6~.'.thi~=~'~back~r~q'u:~=t aOes not seriously go agains~fiTi~t6~t~*h~;Z'b~i~'O~a]~a~c~ ffi~{B~'it'would not adversely impact the general public hearlth, ~afety or welfare; nor would it be injurious to properties or improvem?nts in the vicinity, etc. actual location '6f~t~e~ensi~ ]~S good as it'can b~'(co~'ia~r]ng the configuration of the accessory structure). MK. Van Duyn reported that ~he Planning CommisSion felt the structure was considered more of a "guest house", and did not feel this was a use which' is normally construed.as a cabana or auxilliary-type use. He indicated that the staff recognizes~Ya~p~]~af6~h~Tm(m6~a~U~Td~t~'~'gust 13, 1975, there are other poin~'tb'-cOnSi~de~,,~and=it'was the"staff"S o'pi6ionthis variance should be granted, on the basis of this criteria. The public hearing was opened 'at 10:29 P.M. Bob-Truax, 12401 Green Meadow Lane, addressed the Council. -He indicated that he is here this evening in the firm belief this is still a free country, and the Government does not take away the rights of individual citizens without some public purpose. He stated in this particular case, the only thing he has asked for is a variance to build 15 feet into the 25-foot setback area, and that this 25-foot setback~e~buldhave a legitimate public purpose, insuring adequate light, air, privac~'~dd open space. He sta~ed that the 25-foot requirement is no doubt generated with the idea of two houses-being back-to-back. However, in his-situation, there is 150 feet of open ai'~ space which will exist there'permanently, and in additidn, on the other side is "Commercial" property. and there is no one who could be injured by thi:s pro- - 13- APPEAL - ROBERT TRUAX (Cont'd.) posed addition. Mr. Truax then read to the Council a resolution passed by the Saratoga Manor Homeowners Association, resolving that the Homeowners Association fully supports this request for a variance within the 25-foot setback area, and requesting the City Council to give full consideration to their appeal. Mr. Truax further indicated he has with him tonight his neighbors on both sides who might be most affected by this addition, and they have indicated they Would support his application. He stated that it was his ,feeling the Planning Commission took a nu~'er Of things into account which in a court of law would be considered irrelevant. He stated that it was pointed out by one member of the Commission that had he chosen to orient the house a little differently, there would be no basis for any objection.on the basis of size. He indicated'it was only because he wanted to extend it in the most reason- able, logical manner that this came up at all, and he would consider that discussion as irrelevant. He felt the business of the 5 criteria also might have influenced the members of the Commission, and' the, purpose of the provision on variances by the City Planning Commission is quite ~1 ear.- He stated i t uses the term "practical difficulties", 'and does not restrict the action of the Planning Commission in any way. Mr. Truax commented that the first of the 5 criteria could be interpreted as restricting the liberty of the Planning Commission to grant a variance. It is also stated that strict.or literal interpretation of the Ordinance regulations could result in practical difficulties or unnecessary phgsical hardship, inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. ~uax-pOi~e~o~_~.n thi. S i~s~ance, the wordingsays more, in that~t~ ~'." FWoU}d'.b~prac~ica.~ d~f~icul~ies-i~T~Qilding the addition in the ot~er directibn~a~d"~"l~r~' ~eg~nt~df'~he property would be practically inaccessible. Councilman Kraus asked Mr. Truax how far the cabana would be from his house. Mr. Truax replied it would be approximately 70 feet. DonaldSifferman, homedwner of the home immediately adjacent to..the property to the east and slightly south, addressed the Counci'l. He indicated that Mr. Truax has a very private piece of property, and he has a long driveway which isolates him from the the other residents. Mr. Sifferman stated he also is s~a~ted from the properties to the north and west, ~hd ~ a~ ~djace~t~ .~d~nt,[Mr. Sifferman stated he would have no objections at'all.' "~ - It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 10:37. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconde~ byCo~ncilwoman Corr the Planning Commission decision in th~s matter be overturned, and the Council grant approval of this appeal for a variance. The motion was carried. D. 9equest by AVCO for Reversion to Acreage Tract No. 5582 and 5620 (Cont'd. 7/16/75) The City Manager explained that this item was continued to determine whether or not ~he_C)£y could deduct from the fees to be refunded for court~o~_~~'''~ ,~x~ in~ th~.s matter, and the City Attorney h~s advised that i n accord with the State Map Act, this would not be an eligible basis for including th~se fees. Therefore, it is the staff's recommendation the Council take the following actions: 1) Approve reversion of the Final Map'; 2) ~scind the agreement for the construction of improvements; 3). Approve the ~efund of fees, amounting to $8,410.68; and 4)Adopt Resolution 746, Vacating and Abandoning Offers of Dedication of Easement~'~L_~'' ...... ~ ~ ~'~' ""~: The Mayor opened the public hearing at 10:43 P.M. - 14- REQUEST BY AVCO - REVERSION TO ACREAGE (Cont'd.) There being no further comments at this time, it. was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the public hearing"be closed. The" motion was carried. It was then moved by CoGncilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr Resolution SD-1138-2, granting Final Map Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr Resolution 746 be adopted. The motion was carried. It was movedby Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the Council approve rescinding the agreement for construction of improvements and authorize release of improvement bonds~-and"~u~~.'~h~motion was carried. · Recess and' Reconveyne VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1. Announced he would like toadjourn the meeting this evening in the honor of former Planning Con~nissi oner Charles Smith. B. FINANCE 1. Payment of Claims It was moved by Councilman Kraus and'seconded by Councilman Brigham the list of disbursements, 21801 .thru 21865, be approved,.and the Mayor be authorized to sign the warrants,. The motion was carried. 2. City Clerk's Financial Report - Noted and filed. 3. City Treasurer's Report - Noted and filed. C. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. CoUncilman Brigham announced that the two resolutions recently sub- mitted to the League of California Cities Resolutions Committee were officially adopted. D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Director of Public Works - Report Re: Status of Left-Turn Lanes on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Cont'd. 7/2/75 & 8/6/75 Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works,.indicated he had nothing to report at this time on the statQs of this'project. 2. Director of Community Services - Report Re: Request for Council Endorse- ment of SB-969: RecreationatT Trails It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman C~rr the Council endorse passage of SB-969. The motion was carried. E. CITY MANAGER 1. Report Re: Lynch Property The City Manager reported that Mr. Lynch met ~ith the Ci~v's Building Official on August llth, and was~r~ded~'a list of five items to bring this building up to a safe status. He indicated the property was in- spected, and it was found .the property has been brought to a safe level, and he is in the process of trying to contact Mr. Lynch in order to work out an agreement to guarantee the maintenance of this property. -15- VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. Mr. Richard H. Graves, 20576 Manor Drive, favoring rezoning from "CV and/or CS (R-1-12,500)" to "R-1-12,500 (Single-Family Residential)" in the Manor Drive area. - Noted a6d filed. 2. Mr. Fred Tatar, 20577 Manor Drive, requesting the Council approve re- .zoning of the Manor Drive area..- Noted'and filed. 3. Mr. Russell L. Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, and Mr~ Thomas H. Sawyer, 20790 Norada Court, clarifying the 'intent of the SAVE OUR HILLS petition and the Notice of Intention to Circulate this petition. The City Attorney commented on ~his letter, ~'~'~h~e'_~w~ ' ~, cases which are cj ted. Mr. Johnston indicated the Du~n vs. Cassi'dy case was not a case of a General Law city -- the Cassidy case was a 1972 case of Visali~; which is a Charter City, and the whole decision was based on the fact this was a' Charter City and they were not bound by the Government Code sections on public hearings at Planning Commission and City Council stages. The O'Loane vs. O'Rourke case was a ~eneral Law City case, bu~ this at a time when the General'Plan was not required, but only optional (1965), and there was no requirement that it was a prerequisite to zoning. He indicated the decision came down in January, 1965, basedon a set of facts submitted in 1963~ ~fective in .September, 1965, the Code was amended to make the General Plan mandatory, and also, to make it a. prereq~isi.te to zoning; therefore, this case has never been ~ited. Therefore, he indicated this does in no way affect his opini'on, and these are old cases which are outdated. Mr. Crowther indicated.the 6rigi~nal notice has been revised'-to state they do not intend to modify a zoning ordinance, but the General Plan, and he indicated he would make this 4. Mr. James McEwan, 20295 Glasgow Drive, requesting the. Council to look into the 3-way stop signs at the intersection of Scotland and Cumberland Drives as a possible "unnecessary interruption in the flow of traffic" along Scotland Drive.'- Directed staff to send,M~. McEwan a copy of the letter on which the Council acted in approving installation of these signs. 5. Mr. Peter Aimonetti,.President, G.I. &~United Taxi Co., Inc., 2662 S. First Street, San Jose, requesting taxi permits in the City of Saratoga. - It was movedby Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus the Council approve granting interim approval to G.I. and United Taxi Co., Inc., to respond to calls in Saratoga, to terminate on September 3, 1975, at which time a public hearing .be held on this matter. This approval be subject to the condition that the rate structure not exceed the previous rate charged, and alsO, subject to the Certificate of Insurance being received by the City. The motion was carried. 6. Ms. Judith S. Corliss, President, League of Women Voters of Los Gatos- Saratoga, intr9duc~ng Mrs. James Barrett as the observer for this group at City Council meetings. - Noted an~ filed. 7. J. F. Zeid, 14066 Palomino Way, ~equesting compensation from the City for fees in conne(tion with site approval. - Referred to the staff for a report back at the next regular City Council Meeting. - 16- WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd.) 8. Leo F. Piazza Paving, 985 Blossom Hill Road, formally protesting the bid opening of the Seal Coating and'Overlay project, and'requesting the City to reject all bids and call for a re-bid at a future date. - See City Counci'l action: Item II-D. Public Works Director to respond to letter. B. ORAL The M~yor acknowledged the presence of public group representatives in the audience this evening, as follows: Donald Sifferman, President, Manor Drive Homeowners AssociatiOn; John Wier, President, Arguello'Homeowners Association; Nancy McDonald, Republican Central Committee of Santa Clara County; Nat Abrams and Mary Ruth Owen, representing the Good Government Group. VIII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Mayor Bnidges.and seconded by Councilman Kraus the meeting be adjourned, in memory of Charles H. Smith, former Planning Commissioner. The n~tion was~carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:43 P.M. - 17-